Stephen:
> What is this legacy? ...>
> The basic idea is this: since there are (natural)
> *mechanisms* that assure best results -- in nature, in
> biology, and in society -- the enlightened citizen abandons
> a sentimental and childish pursuit of godly justice or the
> anti-social ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and realizes
> that there are no ethical or political issues *as such*. All
> our social ills are discovered to be social problems of
> administration and *management* -- hence the prominence of
> "the economy" and managing the economy in modern politics.
> All else is subsidiary to this.
>
> I think that a realization of how deeply and unconsciously
> "we" are committed to this vision of things, to this
> mechanistic understanding of the natural and social worlds,
> goes a long way to explaining our behavior and our politics.
I for one am glad that we have abandoned the Sermon on the Mount because I
don't want to feel that I have to gouge my right eye out or cut off my right
hand. That sounds a little too much like the absolute application of
Sharia. Nor do I always want to turn the other cheek.
I would agree that, to some degree, we still adhere to the
Newtonian/Lockeian/Smithian vision of things as Stephen suggests. In
Economics 150 we are still taught that an economically efficient system is a
perfectly competitive one that achieves equilibrium by having everyone
behave in his or her self interest. In Economics 175, welfare economics, we
are still taught that such an equilibrium might not be fair and equitable
unless methods of having the "haves" compensate the "have nots" are
introduced without having the "haves" really lose anything. These concepts
of efficient allocation and equitable distribution, along with matters like
justice and maintaining the integrity of the state, continue to be among the
most important foundations of our political thought and actions. And, yes,
we do tend to believe that our elected governments can, for better or worse,
manage society and the economy.
Yet I would suggest that, even though we continue to bow in their direction,
we've come a long way from the thinkers of the Enlightenment. We know that
the world is not perfectly competitive and that self interested behavior
does not always lead to efficient solutions. It can as easily lead to
Microsoft, Enron or Worldcom. And we know that, despite all of the
principles of equity we can come up with, the distribution of income and
wealth is still highly inequitable and, if one thinks internationally, is
probably becoming less equitable. However, in my opinion, our most
important departure from the Enlightenment lies within the fields of risk
and uncertainty. As Stephen explains it, the Newtonian world was certain.
It all fit together like clockwork and worked like a gigantic clock. If you
could but define the inputs and outputs and figure out the path of
causation, the results were predictable. This is no longer acceptable
because, in ever so many situations, we cannot do any of these things with
any real accuracy or certainty. We live in a world of surprise and
indistinct possibilities. There may not be any equilibria. All there may
be is uncertain process and indistinct possibilities.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Straker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: They were pretty dim
> Hello Ray,
>
> > ... The childlike faith in mechanisms
> > that the Republicans have or profess is either idiocy or duplicity (note
the
> > Wall Street Journal's recent conversion to re-regulation for the power
> > companies in face of the failure of the "invisible economic hand").
The
> > "invisible hand" is the most ridiculous notion that I've seen to date...
> > ... Nature isn't automatic but dynamic
> > and Laisse Faire whether in economics, education or the environment is
an
> > excuse for intellectual laziness and irresponsibility. You have to
plan,
> > think about the future of your grandchildren and the sustainability of
the
> > present. I see little of such thought or action in the present in any
> > quarter. That's my experience and opinion.
>
> Oh my goodness, Ray, you have targetted the *core*
> intellectual convictions of the European enlightenment,
> fundamental ideas and perceptions which endure as strong as
> ever to this day and lie behind almost all contemporary
> thought and politics.
>
> I wonder if I can successfully sketch these core
> commitments. What did Newton discover that was so celebrated
> by Voltaire? What has the commitment to modern science
> placed at the center of our beliefs? Newton discovered that
> the dynamic universe is kept in *order* by the operation of
> the laws ("rights"?) of motion of individual particles of
> matter, laws established by the same Provident God who,
> according to John Locke (Newton's colleague on the London
> Board of Trade), created those individual particles of
> society, *human* atoms, each endowed with innate "rights"
> ("natural laws"?) of life, liberty, and property. Newton and
> Locke make the world safe for what CB MacPherson famously
> called "the political theory of possessive individualism".
>
> A collection of material particles, each having its own
> inertial mass and the power of attracting every other
> particle (gravity), produces by these mechanical laws a
> *solar system* consisting of large aggregated bodies moving
> in stable dynamic orbits. A collection of individual human
> atoms, each seeking its own way, interact in such a way as
> to produce stable, progressive, social orders.
>
> The mechanism of the Newtonian universe is imitated in the
> mechanism of the market. And it is this FACT of MECHANISM
> that offers such eloquent testimony to the benevolent
> Providence of an all-wise Creator: the mechanism operates so
> that each of the individual particles just goes about its
> own business (moving, gravitating, seeking what it wants)
> with no larger vision in mind; the LAWS of the MECHANISM
> guarantee a natural and social ORDER as an outcome, a
> consequence of the interactions of these single-minded
> individuals each of them seeking no larger goal than
> individual well-being.
>
> "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer,
> or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their
> regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to
> their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to
> them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody
> but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence
> of his fellow-citizens" -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk
> I, Ch 2.
>
>
> The beauty of all this is that individuals do *NOT* need to
> worry about those things you are urging upon us. An
> individual is a model citizen of a modern republic if he
> simply looks after his own self-interests and responds
> rationally to his own individual needs. He does NOT
> > ... have to plan,
> > think about the future of [his] grandchildren and the sustainability of
the
> > present...
>
> If he just looks out for himself, the *mechanisms* of the
> markets (in goods, in ideas, in political candidates) will
> take care of the greater economic, social, and political
> good.
>
> It is quite a powerful vision. Its founders (Newton, Locke,
> Voltaire) saw this as the establishment of a providential
> diety. As God gradually abandoned the scene -- "I have no
> need of that hypothesis, sire" says Laplace to the Emperor
> when asked where is God in his scheme of the solar system --
> the benevolence of the diety was replaced by a belief in the
> progressiveness & goodness inherent in nature.
>
> Thus from Adam Smith's progressive history of human
> civilization -- all of it driven by the "innate propensity
> to truck, barter, and exchange" of each individual human
> atom, Smith's counterpart to the innate gravitating tendency
> of each Newtonian atom -- it is a small step to *DARWIN*
> with his evolutionary MECHANISM whereby "more and more
> highly organized" living things are produced by the
> interaction of biological individuals having no larger goal
> than their own day-to-day survival.
>
> There is no greater testimony to "the West's" commitment to
> *individualism* and natural MECHANISMS than the current
> conviction that everything exists and everything has
> happened by the operation of *evolutionary* mechanisms. Thus
> nothing is explained or understood until its evolutionary
> origins or foundations have been uncovered: the current
> insistence on *evolutionary* explanations in anthropology,
> history, psychology, linguistics, cognitive development,
> education, economics (right here on FW!), and so on.
> And so we are the children of the Enlightment. ("What do you
> mean 'we', Mr European?" I hear Ray asking.)
>
> What is this legacy? The major thing, I think, is the
> *eclipse of politics* by the sciences of management and
> administration: a cultural commitment to utilitarian justice
> and ethics. I first encountered this conclusion in the
> eloquently argued *Politics and Vision* by Sheldon Wolin.
>
> The basic idea is this: since there are (natural)
> *mechanisms* that assure best results -- in nature, in
> biology, and in society -- the enlightened citizen abandons
> a sentimental and childish pursuit of godly justice or the
> anti-social ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and realizes
> that there are no ethical or political issues *as such*. All
> our social ills are discovered to be social problems of
> administration and *management* -- hence the prominence of
> "the economy" and managing the economy in modern politics.
> All else is subsidiary to this.
>
> I think that a realization of how deeply and unconsciously
> "we" are committed to this vision of things, to this
> mechanistic understanding of the natural and social worlds,
> goes a long way to explaining our behavior and our politics.
>
> There is much more that could be said and much detailed
> accounting to be given before any of this could be
> persuasive, but the basic picture seems pretty clear to me.
> And the problems with this basic picture *are* the basic
> problems of our current situation. We are in trouble to the
> extent and in the same ways that this mechanistic vision is
> in trouble.
>
> Perhaps this makes some sense of things ...
>
> Stephen Straker
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vancouver, B.C.
> [Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AntiVirus]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
